41–50 of 193 posts
You know you can just say no right? And if the job is ass like that just get a new job. Or start your own company. This article is just a complaint slop, and complainers are just as bad if not worse. Do something.
> ...every unilateral decision gets read as a cultural violation and a signal that you aren’t a team player. Collaboration-as-ideology has made ownership and responsibility feel antisocial, which is a hell of a thing, given that ownership is the only mechanism that gets anything across the finish line. This is definitely how it can feel sometimes, but it's simply not true. The problem really is just poor communicatio…
It's frustrating to pull more weight and take ownership when other people aren't. But what's legitimately soul-killing to an individual and deadly to an organization is the collective impulse to avoid giving those people credit when it's due. Most of those 20% out there pulling more than their weight just want some acknowledgement. Not giving them that is one way to quickly hollow out your company.
Yes.
> deadly to an organization is the collective impulse to avoid giving those people credit when it's due.
No, in fact most office jobs operate this way in the world.
A lot leaps from riflemen, who obviously didn’t want to die (did you expect them to rush Medal of Honor style?), to system features to model office work? Whole essay is incoherent mess written by one of those lonesome “no-bullshiter” who gets the job done but is so pulled down by modern day bureaucracy that even his clairvoyance can’t get through. > Dostoevsky wrote _The Brothers Karamazov_ alone. The Apollo Guidance…
Yeah but you'd think not dying involves killing those who want to kill you, or at least shooting at them! Isn't it super interesting to learn that 80% of riflemen don't ever shoot?
I think our processes are terrible as an industry. I have brought this up many times but we don't understand what actually works when something goes right and what failed when something went wrong. Adding to this is that engineers love tools and process so they tend to credit tools and process with success because we like the machine. Giving it credit where credit wasn't due leads to slowly growing more elaborate pro…
What's depressing is that it's like Fred Books' book never happened: most managers think the way to solve IT problems is just to trow more people / more money at it until it gets solved; and they're all surprised when it doesn't work, but try again the next time anyhow.
Not sure men fighting for their lives in WW2 is the best comparison point for dev teams having too many standups and retros.
At the beginning of the Battle the weather was terrible, stopping the normal collaboration with the air force. When the weather cleared, collaboration restarted, and both arms could work together much more effectively than the army alone.
A lot leaps from riflemen, who obviously didn’t want to die (did you expect them to rush Medal of Honor style?), to system features to model office work? Whole essay is incoherent mess written by one of those lonesome “no-bullshiter” who gets the job done but is so pulled down by modern day bureaucracy that even his clairvoyance can’t get through. > Dostoevsky wrote _The Brothers Karamazov_ alone. The Apollo Guidance…
This quote and the entire article could be extrapolated beyond the scope of an organization to highlight the importance of the notion of authorship in society as a whole: > The collaboration industry has spent a fortune obscuring a dirty truth: most complex, high-quality work is done by individuals or very small groups operating with clear authority and sharp accountability, then rationalized into the language of tea…
But at the same time we all build things on top of other things and rely on complex supply chains. That's also a form of collaboration
Collaboration between us is the default (no one exists in isolation), but forcing a particular sense of collaboration onto people is a different thing.